PageRank question

Old Welsh Guy: A long time ago (in internet time that is), google moved to what is known as everflux. This means that the benefit of backlinks anchor text etc is applied as soon as the page carrying the information is cached. So the moment the page carrying your backlinks is indexed in google and the cache is current, your getting the benefit.
Everflux, which was coined by WMW in 2002, has to do more with new pages ranking high and then with in a short time dropped down in ranking than getting credit for the inbound links.

While the days of the big SERP changes at Google dance time are gone do you think that BL credits are applied on an ongoing basics as soon as they are parsed out of the new Web site documents or are then done in batches. You seem to be saying on a continuous basics. Has GG posted any info on this or are they any good docs on this. I googled around and didn't find anything.

 

Minstral: Could you be a little more specific? Links to where these "top names in SEO" have said that Google has abandoned PageRank as a ranking factor? preferably with a bit of evidence attached?
Not really but it is a commonly held belief. I should probably correct my statement to say it has little or no ranking weight as Matt Cutts made a comment lately that it does hold some ranking weight but not as much as some people think. If you ask around you will find that most SEO experts hold that it has little or no ranking weight.

 

So are a whole lot of other Google myths. Personally, I put no stock in "commonly held beliefs" with no evidence behind them. I file those under "rank speculation/wild guesses, probably incorrect".

 

Hmm.

Will you see an increase in traffic because your page rank as reported by google changes from 0 to 4?

No.

Will you see an increase in traffic because you get good quality inbound links that google reports by increasing your page rank from 0 to 4?

Yes.

But it is the inbound links that are giving you the traffic, not google putting an arbitrary "rank" on your page.

 

No. Because by the time the Toolbar PR is updated, those changes are already reflected in your Google rankings.

That's correct. And PageRank ("internal" PageRank rather than what you see on the toolbar) is how Google evaluates the number and quality of those inbound links, just as they always have.

 

Minitrel: "So are a whole lot of other Google myths. Personally, I put no stock in 'commonly held beliefs' with no evidence behind them. I file those under 'rank speculation/wild guesses, probably incorrect'."
If you want to believe that PR still holds some ranking weight then that is fine with me. A little bit of reseach or if you kept up with some of the main SEO forums and blogs you would know the the position of most SEO experts on this issue.
My position is that PR holds little or no ranking weight.

 

I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?

 

Ministral: "I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?"

I suggest you read my post again. You will not see anywhere where I stated that "backlinks are of no important to Google ranking any more".
You will how ever find the following stated "My position is that PR holds little or no ranking weight." That has been what what we have been discussing and that is what this thread largely is about.

I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

While I hold that PR has little or no ranking weight I don't hold that Google has "abandoned... ...PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology". I think there is a big difference between devaluing and abandoning.

 

And what do you think PageRank measures or represents, Bob?

 

Ministral: "And what do you think PageRank measures or represents, Bob?"
I noted this on my #14 post.

"What PR does show you is how many inbound links you have an[d] how many inbound links the pages have that your inbound links are from. Also PR is good for showing if you are under a penalty or ban. If it drops from PR6 to a PR4 or so or even a PR0 and there has not been a Toolbar PR update you may be under a penalty."

But really the issue here is not what Pagerank measures but does the PR of a page hold ranking weight. Again there is clearly a difference between PR ranking weight and Link pop ranking weight.

While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?

 

Bob, you are so hopelessly confused I'm surprised you can find your own feet in the morning. Half the time I don't know what the hell you are tryin g to say and most of the time I don't think you know.

PageRank is a formula for evaluating/weighting/measuring link popularity as defined by incoming links to a web page. Correct?

Google has long said that there are over 100 factors that go into determining the ranking of a page. Correct?

PageRank is one of those factors.

You seem to be acknowledging that incoming links are still important. Correct?

You also seem to be acknowledging that PageRank is a measure of the number and "value" of those incoming links. Correct?

Yet you still want to tell us that PageRank has nothing to do with page ranking?

 

HI Bob,

Here is a direct quote from a BBC article with Matt Cutts where he first mentions the rolling update. Everflux in my mind means a constant state of flux, which Google is.

"Within the last year we have improved out way of processing and indexing the web," he says. "You are not going to see Google dances."

"Now we crawl a percentage of the web everyday," he says, "so after a relatively small time frame we hit every page."

I added the bolding. He clearly states there that they have altered the processing AND the indexing. I thought it was common knowledge that Google had gone to a rolling update, and Matt has stated this at many webmaster events.

 

So did I....

 

Ministrel:
"PageRank is a formula for evaluating/weighting/measuring link popularity as defined by incoming links to a web page. Correct?"
No. Pagerank is a formula for evaludating/weighting/measuring the important of a page.
Google "Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query."

"Google has long said that there are over 100 factors that go into determining the ranking of a page. Correct?"
Correct.

"PageRank is one of those factors."
Correct!

"You seem to be acknowledging that incoming links are still important. Correct?"
Yes I have noted that after you misquoted me and made a claim that I said inbound links were not important.

"You also seem to be acknowledging that PageRank is a measure of the number and "value" of those incoming links. Correct?"
Measurement of the number and value of real Pagerank which is displayed in visible toolbar and Google directory Pagerank, yes.

"Yet you still want to tell us that PageRank has nothing to do with page ranking?"
Another misquote. Did you want to point out where I stated this. My position is that Pagerank hold little on no ranking weight but that inbound links or link popularity hold 80 to 95% of the ranking weight in Google. A little bit of reading and you will find this is a common view held by SEO experts. This is not a view I have come up with but one that I have adopted.

Pagerank and link popularity are two different ranking items. I am still wondering if you are realizing this.

While it is inbound links that vote Pagerank to a page, Pagerank is not the ranking weight of the inbound links. Pagerank has its own ranking weight as does inbound links. The ranking weight of Pagerank can be devalued (and any one in the know knows this has happened over the last 2 years), with out the inbound links ranking weight being effected.

Ministral I made the following statement "...If you want to believe that PR still holds some ranking weight then that is fine with me..." in post #26 and you followed with your deduction in post #27 by stating "I see. So you "hold" that backlinks are of no importance to Google ranking any more. And do your "experts" tell you what Google IS basing its ranking on these days, Bob? I mean, now that it's abandoned "link popularity" and PageRank which was the foundation of Google's technology? Are they now back to using meta keywords tags?"

It is increasingly clear to me that you don't seem to realize that link pop and Pagerank each have a ranking weight that is independent of each other. To you when I say Pagerank is devalued to little or no ranking weight you react with a statement concluding that I am stating that link popularity or inbound links no longer have any ranking weight.

In this your appear to be in error in a very elementry understanding of the difference between Pagerank weight and link popularity weight, and the fact that they are not related directly.

Perhaps if you take time to answer the following two questions you have passed over we can find out where the misundertanding really is. You may even find that it is not me that is "...so hopelessly confused I'm surprised you can find your own feet in the morning..." but in fact the confusion may lie with a misunderstanding you have.

I suggest you answer my following questions that I asked you and up to now have passed over.

"I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

"While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between [the] ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?"

Also let me ask a third question. Do you think that Google could devalue the ranking weight of Pagerank without it effecting the ranking weight of inbound links?

*Note: "Ranking Weight" of an item is the weight that an item has in the over all ranking of a Web page in the search engine results for a specific query. We would say that inbound links hold very high ranking weight while the meta keywords holds little or no ranking weight.

 

Bob, you don't even seem to be aware of the contradictions in your own statements. Read again what you just posted, okay?

 

Minstrel: The problem here seems to be to me that you are not aware that the ranking weight that Pagerank has in the search engine results in Google could drop to little or nothing with out effecting the ranking weight that the anchor text contains.

"Bob, you don't even seem to be aware of the contradictions in your own statements. Read again what you just posted, okay?"
There are no contradictoins in the statements you posted. I suggest if you feel there are that you point them out.

While you are at it you may want to take the time to answer the 3 question that I have posted to you. 2 of them have been posted twice and you passed over them both time.

It seems to me that you don't have as good a grasp on Pagerank and inbound links ranking weights as you think you do!

Part of having a meanful discussion is answering each others questions. I have answered all your questions and have made comments on all your points. I suggest you do the same.

Here are the 3 questions one more time. If you are not interested in answering them I don't see that there is much more to discuss here. I bolded them this time so you will be sure to see them : )

"I do trust you know there is a difference between "PR ranking weight" and "backlink ranking weight" (what you are calling "link popularity") or do you consider there to be both the same?

"While inbound links, that hold about 90% plus of the ranking weight for Google, are what votes PR to a page there is clearly a different between [the] ranking weight of the two. I do trust you know this?"

Also let me ask a third question. Do you think that Google could devalue the ranking weight of Pagerank without it effecting the ranking weight of inbound links?

 

There you go Bob, I had a word with my Mate Matt Cutts abd he has blogged this just for you <joke>

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/whats-an-update/

 

I constantly hear about SERP: What is SERP anyway? Is it Search Engine Position Rank or something similar? How is it monitored?

 

Search Engine Result Page(s)

 

What do you mean by sandboxed?